"He's no ordinary man. George Bush is our President!"
Yes, but why must the press carry a man, whose strength isn't in giving eloquent speeches, suddenly hailed as a great voice after his inauguration speech?
Conservative host Michael Medved stated, "Ronald Reagan was a great speaker. President Bush is a great clarifier." This all comes from the same President whose misspeaks is amongst top selling desk calendars. A man who I can appreciate for his southern cowboy ruggedness and in the Administration's execution of carrying out policy. But certainly not one whose speeches *resonate* like a Ronald Reagan or the smoothness of Bill Clinton.
Michael Medved also stated earlier that "Bush's speech will go down as one of the six most remembered." I have a hard enough time believing other Republicans will believe this let alone what the general public believes. On the other hand, the President's speech could well coincide with Medved's imagination given the message is rather a sign of the Iraqian times, and not because he has a particular vocal talent that exudes a loyalty as Reagan's speeches had.
If there are any areas to pick out, Bush's one good quality is in his ability to speak sternly and with certainty, some of the time. This quality may well be enough for some, but my emphasis is in comparison to past presidents? I don't hear too much about the belief or devotion in our Commander-in-Chief's words. I only hear about how he looks "lost" or fumbles his words, and to accuse me otherwise is missing the point because actions speak louder than words. Even conservative supporter Dennis Prager admitted Bush "isn't a strong speaker."
My aim was to focus on the conservative media's need to advertise goals that are a little out of reach given Bush's speech record has been documented and made money off in comical fashion. A need that involves archiving a supposed great speech from an ordinary speaker for the sake of preservation in the history books.